Bug 194123 - Can't do multlib development correctly because of missing macros
Summary: Can't do multlib development correctly because of missing macros
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rpm
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Panu Matilainen
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FC6Blocker
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-06-05 21:12 UTC by Bill Nottingham
Modified: 2014-03-17 03:00 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-01-15 14:07:25 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Bill Nottingham 2006-06-05 21:12:21 UTC
On any standard x86-64 box, you only have /usr/lib/{x86_64,noarch}-linux
directories, and only have macro files for those directories.

Hence, if you try and build i386 packages, you will get packages with
%{_lib} = lib64, %{_libdir} = /usr/lib64, etc.

Comment 1 Paul Nasrat 2006-06-26 19:21:11 UTC
If you rm -f /etc/rpm/platform and use setarch i386 rpmbuild does it work?

Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2006-06-29 04:15:37 UTC
Appears to, at least from a quick check of /lib vs /lib64.

Comment 3 Jeff Johnson 2006-07-02 11:58:56 UTC
And what was in /etc/rpm/platform pray tell? "ia32e" is my guess ...

Comment 4 Bill Nottingham 2006-07-13 00:39:30 UTC
[notting@xenomorph ~]$ cat /etc/rpm/platform
x86_64-redhat-linux


Comment 5 Jeff Johnson 2006-07-13 16:11:56 UTC
Ok, my bad (although there's another closely reklated problem with multiple aliases like amd64 and i132e 
for x86_64).

Arch (as currently set within rpm using uname(2) or /etc/rpm/platfrom) is not the right variable to 
determine multilib build configuration.

Comment 6 Jeff Johnson 2006-08-06 21:48:29 UTC
This problem is likely fixed (by setting arch from --target) in rpm-4.4.7-0.15.

UPSTREAM

Comment 7 Hans de Goede 2006-10-27 08:17:12 UTC
Jeff,

Any chance you could isolate the patch from 4.4.7 and attach that here. Please
don't take this wrong:
1) I do not wish to get involved in the whole fork rpm or stick with upstream 
   discussion.
2) I would love to see Fedora jump to 4.4.7 since some of the new features I 
   could really use (I maintain 80+ packages in FE).
But:
3) I don't see the jump to 4.4.7 happening soon and would still like to see this
   fixed.

Thanks!


Comment 8 Jeff Johnson 2006-10-27 12:04:59 UTC
The patch to use --target is non-trivial and mired in legacy expectations of how
rpmbuild should be configured. E.g. setarch is not the right approach, consider
non-linux functionality (which I have to accomodate even if you don't).

I don't wish to be involved with Fedora fork-or-jbj discussions either; I feel your pain.

I don't see the "jump" to 4.4.7 happening at all. Various people will talk, wring their
hands about how big an asshole I am, and do nothing.

Comment 9 Jeff Johnson 2006-10-27 16:29:22 UTC
FWIW, the patches necessary to implement setting rpm's conception
of arch from --target were posted to <rpm-devel.duke.edu>
in August 2006 with a request for comments. Some of the comments remain
to be satisfied.

Comment 10 Red Hat Bugzilla 2007-08-21 05:24:10 UTC
User pnasrat's account has been closed

Comment 11 Panu Matilainen 2007-08-22 06:31:43 UTC
Reassigning to owner after bugzilla made a mess, sorry about the noise...

Comment 12 Panu Matilainen 2008-01-15 14:07:25 UTC
rpm 4.4.2.2-13 in rawhide now includes the x86 arch macros on x86_64. That
doesn't fix much by itself, the issue is, um, tangled...


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.